Test your negotiating know-how: Are you better off going into a negotiation alone or as part of a two-person team? "You’d generally do better with the team," reports Susan Brodt, assistant professor at the University of Virginia’s Colgate Darden School, "but probably not for the reasons you’d expect." 

Research conducted by Brodt and her colleagues from the University of Washington in Seattle, associate professor of psychology Leigh Thompson and graduate student Erika Peterson, found teams to be a strength at the bargaining table less because they out muscled solo opponents than because they increased the overall value of the deal being negotiated. "The teams were remarkably effective in increasing the total amount of resources to be divided," explains Brodt. "Moreover, it was not necessary that both of the negotiating parties be teams; rather, the presence of at least one team substantially improved the profitability of both parties." 

Team negotiations are generally more accurate than solo negotiations in discerning the other party’s interests and, as a result, they are better able to find common interests and create the win-win situations that benefit both parties. For example, while almost one-third of the one-on-one negotiations studied by the researchers failed to recognize a single issue that the two parties had in common, all of the two-on-two negotiations discovered at least one area of agreement. This effect occurred whether or not teammates worked closely together, says Brodt. 

Teams also appeared to be better than solos at logrolling, finding is-sues for which negotiators had different priorities and making trade-offs: each party gets its desired out-come on issues that it cares most about in exchange for making con-cessions on issues it values less. 

Achieving a bargaining advantage, however, requires effective coordination, the researchers found. Teams in their initial study had not worked together before and were not allowed to caucus privately, and they were unable to win a larger share of the resources than their solo opponents. This outcome occurred despite the perception of both sides that the teams held the bargaining advantage. In nearly all of the two-on- one negotiations, solos feared a significant disadvantage against the team, whereas teams were largely convinced of their inherent bargaining advantage over the solo. In reality, however, this wasn’t so. 

In another study, Thompson, Brodt, and Peterson found that negotiating teams that were moderately cohesive were able to out bargain solos and gain on average 60% of the resources. But even in such situations, the solos weren’t losers. Be-cause of the larger pie that the teams created, the solos left with the same amount as they would have gained when facing off against another solo.

"Teams improve the overall quality of negotiations by finding creative solutions that work for both sides," concludes Brodt. Two heads are better than one.

Anne G. Perkins